The House bill didn't have a paid-for disaster provision in it, the Senate bill did. And so when we molded these together, we put these disaster provisions in, and we paid for them, the first time that we actually paid for a disaster with pay-as-you-go money, and we included the California disaster in the process and paid for it. This is not a new program. As I said, it is not an earmark, and it was brought in because we were dealing with a disaster. This is clearly a disaster. Any place that you have a complete shutdown of a commercial fishery, they are going to be in asking for help from the Federal Government. That is appropriate. This was brought in, the permanent disaster program from the Senate, and funded when we molded them together.
Collin Peterson: “The House bill didn't have a paid-for disaster provision in it, the Senate bill did. And so when we molded these…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the inclusion of disaster provisions in a bill during House debate.
Share
More from Collin Peterson
It is not a constitutional quagmire. I don't know why people bring this up, because it was clear in this 1892 court case what the situation is. The thing is, we initially asked, if I could explain, if it was possible to re-enroll the bill…
I've been working with the gentleman from Virginia on this issue, and I think he has some good ideas here that we have been working through, but we just aren't at the point where we're comfortable on this side at this point. If I could…
I rise today to commend the good people of Minnesota who have banded together to begin the healing process. When that bridge fell, every citizen of my State felt the grief and the pain together. It has certainly been a difficult couple of…
I want to say to my good friend, Mr. Goodlatte, that I appreciate his support for this measure. And what we're trying to do in our committee is to develop a consensus as we move through this issue. And there are a lot of ideas, a lot of…





